IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

You misunderstand what science does. It doesn't tell you want to think, it merely presents possible theories and the data supporting them. Each researcher makes up their own mind--the idea that we need to accept the consensus only works as first-order approximation.

Quote:

But hey, lets just make it all about pride and pissing contests.

It has nothing to do with pride--you either have reproducible data or not. You admit that you don't. Thus, there's no reason to accept what you say. It's not even wrong: without reproducible data, it doesn't even rise to the level of being a valid topic of conversation.

__________________GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Didn’t we just have all this out on a parallel thread. It was quite clearly established that God is an unfalsifiable concept. Perhaps someone should start a thread on why some skeptics find it so hard to live with this unavoidable fact…or why some skeptics are so desperate to find some kind of ‘proof’ that God does not exist (anyone else would introduce a word like ‘insecurity’…but not me). Come to think of it, I seem to recall someone did once. Didn’t go too far. I guess some skeptics just don’t like facts.

“ There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one. It is easy to understand why someone might think it's a waste of effort going to all that trouble to set the thought down, a kind of intrusion of the Protestant Ethic. But since I live almost all my life down I've made the effort - successfully, I think. Incidentally, I find that reasonably good insights can be remembered the next day, but only if some effort has been made to set them down another way. If I write the insight down or tell it to someone, then I can remember it with no assistance the following morning; but if I merely say to myself that I must make an effort to remember, I never do.”

Originally Posted by Tricky

Prove it.
You want us to determine a double-blind protocol for testing this, or do you have one? Or are you just making claims (while sitting on your lazy ass) you have no abilty to support and no intention of doing so?
.

Isn’t accusing someone of ‘sitting on their lazy ass’ regarded as an ad hominem? I suppose if they are sitting on their lazy ass then it's merely a statement of fact. Are they?

Originally Posted by Tricky

Which is, of course, impossible for a skeptic or for anyone else. You cannot duplicate another's mental state because you cannot know another's mental state. Oh, sure, you can imagine that you're duplicating the "altered state of mystical consciousness", but how could you ever show that you had done so to an impartial observer? But skeptics are just as capable of entertaining the daydreams of others as non-skeptics are. Heck, most of the folks here are fans of science fiction, and it that's not a "mystical consciousness" then I don't know what is.

The difference is, we don't confuse it with reality. You seem to take some sort of pride in your inability to distinguish reality from imaginative states. It seems an odd thing to be proud of, but hey, to each his own.

Carl Sagan obviously did not believe ‘altered states’ are not real…according to that quote of his….but hey, to each his own. And what actually is reality Tricky? The current consensus in the cog sci community quite clearly indicates that we do not know what consciousness is or how it is produced (let alone what this universe is or where it came from)….so how is it you know what ‘reality’ actually is?

Originally Posted by Tricky

If I weeded my way through that word salad successfully, it seems that this "imaginative participation" is a study of whether or not we can go down the same imaginary pathways as someone else and "imaginatively understand them on their own terms". And of course we can. Anyone who can competently describe a scenario can make others envision the same scenario in a somewhat similar manner. Without such an ability, no human being would be able to appreciate fiction. But where this falls short is in the fact that it says absolutely nothing about determining whether or not such an imaginative pathway has any basis in reality. You don't do that by participating in their illusion. You do that by testing if such concepts work in the real world. If they don't, then they are useless for describing reality, no matter how much fun they are to imagine.

I invite you to stand on top of Mount Everest some day and realize just how wrong you are.

…as for this ‘does it have any basis in reality’…again, Sagan seemed quite convinced it does. You do not…but hey, to each his own.

__________________Wondering...and wandering.
Paths that are too often empty
these days.
Encountered hope...but no words written.
Try to decide if there will be.

“ There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing.

…as for this ‘does it have any basis in reality’…again, Sagan seemed quite convinced it does. You do not…but hey, to each his own.

Argumentum Cannibis Sativa? Argumentum Carl Sagan?

Yeah, I've been baked, thought great thoughts, wrote them down. I however recognize doggerel when I see it.

It was quite clearly established that God is an unfalsifiable concept. Perhaps someone should start a thread on why some skeptics find it so hard to live with this unavoidable fact…or why some skeptics are so desperate to find some kind of ‘proof’ that God does not exist (anyone else would introduce a word like ‘insecurity’…but not me).

A sideways insult is still an insult, and you still introduced the word "insecurity" here.

The issue I have is that, as I've stated, until evidence FOR god(s) has been presented, the topic isn't even wrong. Not every idea is worthy of consideration. For example, while no one can PROVE that Rhinogrades don't exist, no one actually takes the idea seriously. They're not dismissed because there's evidence that no such creature existed, but rather because the topic doesn't rise to the level of being worth dismissing. Without reproducible and independantly verifiable data to support an idea one simply cannot rule out that the person speaking (even if YOU are the person speaking) is simply experiencing a mental disorder. If you're NOT the person speaking it gets even more troublesome, as you could have interpreted your experience wrong and without independantly verifiable data I can't know it.

This has nothing to do with insecurity. It has to do with having standards in my mental process, and not violating them simply because the concept is gods rather than the feeding behavior of a dinosaur.

Quote:

Isn’t accusing someone of ‘sitting on their lazy ass’ regarded as an ad hominem?

Well, accusing someone of insecurity--I'm sorry, strongly insinuating that accusation--is as well, so let's not get too wrapped up in that issue, eh?

Quote:

And what actually is reality Tricky?

Reality is that which exists whether we believe in it or not.

Quote:

The current consensus in the cog sci community quite clearly indicates that we do not know what consciousness is or how it is produced (let alone what this universe is or where it came from)….so how is it you know what ‘reality’ actually is?

Again, reality is that which exists whether we believe in it or not. This presents a means of verifying any datum that one might have: go to someone hostile to the idea and have them look at the datum.

Of course, you don't consistently apply this sophestry (how could you?). After all, we also don't know what gods are or how they are produced; thus we can't know what 'god' actually is, can we? As soon as you discard the concept of reality you leave yourself open to any stray idea that comes into your mind, because you have no means of verifying any ideas. You obviously don't do that--you have a specific interpretation of reality (otherwise any argument would be impossible). Thus, this entire line of reasoning is irrelevent, being nothing more than a conversational gambit intended to evade a serious examination of your interpretation of reality.

__________________GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Limbo is of the opinion that when you take hallucinogenic drugs that you're actually tapping in to some real higher state of consciousness and that what you see in your hallucinations is a more accurate representation of reality than what you see in your day to day life.

Well, it's a different representation of reality, occasioned by chemically induced changes in brain function. These experiences can have long-lasting or permanent effects, often beneficial; as if, by flooding or saturating cognitive pathways, a more neutral balance is restored. Sometimes though, permanent damage occurs, the resulting balance being maladaptive. That such damage is relatively rare is a testament to the resilience of the brain - and it's been suggested that it's a result of the persistent use of such psychoactives over evolutionary timescales.

__________________Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

I have to announce my conversion, here on JREF forums. I pondered Limbo's meaning and especially his espousing of the "esoteric." At first I dismissed it as frivolous nonsense, but then I tripped and fell into a puddle of lysergic acid diethylamide.

I cannot describe the cosmic horror that I witnessed or the gods that spoke madness into my brain. Only the words "Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" remain clear in my memory.

I can, however, point you in the right direction to learn the truth.

Please join your local Esoteric Order of Dagon. They will enlighten you, mysterically, and esoterically (and if you're really lucky, physically).

That would depend on the esoteric methods used to gain the altered state of mystical consciousness. There are different ways. For instance you could learn the specific meditation techniques.

And when people have done this and have still arrived at the conclusion that it's full of BS, you're nowhere to be found. Funny, that.

Quote:

Well, here is a real-world encounter with God that had real-world after effects that improved a persons life. IN THE REAL WORLD. You could duplicate it for yourself, as I have. There are many similar claims just waiting for armchair skeptics to get off their lazy asses and test them.

They have been tested and they have all failed.

Oh, and which 'God' did that person meet? Is it the same God to which you refer and if so, how do you know? Is it the same God that the Hindus worship and if so, how do you know?

Originally Posted by Limbo

I can see you're confused. I think it boils down to the fact that you have yet to actually study esoterica and mysticism, and so you don't have a handle on what an esoteric God is all about. People grow up thinking of God in exoteric terms and it's unreasonable to expect a skeptic or a believer to suddenly switch to esoteric terms without even having the background knowledge. It actually takes time and effort to understand esoterica and mysticism (aside from childish pop-culture understandings, which must be unlearned), and I have yet to talk to a skeptic willing to put any time and effort into it. They seem to expect a few posts from me to substitute for independent effort and independent learning, and then they blame me for their confusion when they should blame themselves for insisting on a quick and easy understanding of a very complex thing.

You have been presented with people on JREF who have, in fact, studied esoteric knowledge, taken hallucinogens, studied comparative religions and have come back and told you it's all BS. Your response? Stunning silence.

Originally Posted by Limbo

You don't. You become a mystic yourself and meet God yourself and then decide about God for yourself. Rather than sitting there deferring to scientific or religious authorities like a bunch of brain-dead soulless cowards. Why? Because science can't do it for you, lazy asses. Neither can organized religion.

But hey, lets just make it all about pride and pissing contests.

LOL

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

Didn’t we just have all this out on a parallel thread. It was quite clearly established that God is an unfalsifiable concept.

It has been clearly established that some people's definitions of 'god' are specifically designed to make them unfalsifiable. It is also clearly established that some people's definitions of 'god' that are falsifiable, actually have been falsified.

Quote:

Perhaps someone should start a thread on why some skeptics find it so hard to live with this unavoidable fact…or why some skeptics are so desperate to find some kind of ‘proof’ that God does not exist (anyone else would introduce a word like ‘insecurity’…but not me).

That's vastly amusing coming from you. Skeptics in general live quite easily knowing that the vast number of theists make stuff up to deliberately try and avoid scrutiny and falsification. Skeptics aren't particularly desperate to find proof that whichever god is being discussed does not exist, mainly because most skeptics understand about the null hypothesis and that the burden falls squarely upon the theists to put forth evidence of their claims. As it so happens, however, that sometimes a theist puts forth claims that are easily disproven.

Quote:

Come to think of it, I seem to recall someone did once. Didn’t go too far. I guess some skeptics just don’t like facts.

Using the common definition of 'facts', which facts are there specifically that skeptics "just don't like"?

Quote:

Isn’t accusing someone of ‘sitting on their lazy ass’ regarded as an ad hominem?

Only by those who do not understand the concept of ad hominem.

Quote:

I suppose if they are sitting on their lazy ass then it's merely a statement of fact. Are they?

It could be a statement of fact or it could be a statement of one's perceptions. In either case, it's irrelevant to the concept of ad hominem.

Quote:

Carl Sagan obviously did not believe ‘altered states’ are not real…according to that quote of his….but hey, to each his own.

He didn't say anything of the sort and you're being either obtuse or disingenuous by implying so.

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

That would depend on the esoteric methods used to gain the altered state of mystical consciousness. There are different ways. For instance you could learn the specific meditation techniques.

"You do that by testing if such concepts work in the real world."

Well, here is a real-world encounter with God that had real-world after effects that improved a persons life. IN THE REAL WORLD. You could duplicate it for yourself, as I have. There are many similar claims just waiting for armchair skeptics to get off their lazy asses and test them.

I can see you're confused. I think it boils down to the fact that you have yet to actually study esoterica and mysticism, and so you don't have a handle on what an esoteric God is all about. People grow up thinking of God in exoteric terms and it's unreasonable to expect a skeptic or a believer to suddenly switch to esoteric terms without even having the background knowledge. It actually takes time and effort to understand esoterica and mysticism (aside from childish pop-culture understandings, which must be unlearned), and I have yet to talk to a skeptic willing to put any time and effort into it. They seem to expect a few posts from me to substitute for independent effort and independent learning, and then they blame me for their confusion when they should blame themselves for insisting on a quick and easy understanding of a very complex thing.

Originally Posted by Twiler

I have an argument that proves you wrong, but I'm not going to show it to you because you wouldn't understand it.

Didn’t we just have all this out on a parallel thread. It was quite clearly established that God is an unfalsifiable concept. Perhaps someone should start a thread on why some skeptics find it so hard to live with this unavoidable fact…or why some skeptics are so desperate to find some kind of ‘proof’ that God does not exist (anyone else would introduce a word like ‘insecurity’…but not me). Come to think of it, I seem to recall someone did once. Didn’t go too far. I guess some skeptics just don’t like facts.

“ There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one. It is easy to understand why someone might think it's a waste of effort going to all that trouble to set the thought down, a kind of intrusion of the Protestant Ethic. But since I live almost all my life down I've made the effort - successfully, I think. Incidentally, I find that reasonably good insights can be remembered the next day, but only if some effort has been made to set them down another way. If I write the insight down or tell it to someone, then I can remember it with no assistance the following morning; but if I merely say to myself that I must make an effort to remember, I never do.”

Isn’t accusing someone of ‘sitting on their lazy ass’ regarded as an ad hominem? I suppose if they are sitting on their lazy ass then it's merely a statement of fact. Are they?

Carl Sagan obviously did not believe ‘altered states’ are not real…according to that quote of his….but hey, to each his own. And what actually is reality Tricky? The current consensus in the cog sci community quite clearly indicates that we do not know what consciousness is or how it is produced (let alone what this universe is or where it came from)….so how is it you know what ‘reality’ actually is?

I invite you to stand on top of Mount Everest some day and realize just how wrong you are.

…as for this ‘does it have any basis in reality’…again, Sagan seemed quite convinced it does. You do not…but hey, to each his own.

You don't. You become a mystic yourself and meet God yourself and then decide about God for yourself.

But this is entirely consistent with the idea that gods are nothing more than imaginary constructs. The approach you've just described has resulted in a vast number of mystics all over the world "meeting" a great variety of very different gods. We already know that the human mind can construct a vast zoo of imaginary things, but we haven't the slightest empirical evidence that any of these mental experiences of gods correspond to anything outside of the human imagination. You need to be able to show us something about your god that is outside of your own mind

Quote:

Rather than sitting there deferring to scientific or religious authorities like a bunch of brain-dead soulless cowards. Why? Because science can't do it for you, lazy asses. Neither can organized religion.

This is a pathetic cop-out on your part. People are asking you to demonstrate a sound reason to conclude that your god experiences are anything other than your own (apparently drug-induced) fantasies, and in an attempt to mask your inability to do so, you resort to childish insults.

Quote:

But hey, lets just make it all about pride and pissing contests.

That certainly seems to be your goal, but I would rather center this exchange on empirical evidence.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

I have to announce my conversion, here on JREF forums. I pondered Limbo's meaning and especially his espousing of the "esoteric." At first I dismissed it as frivolous nonsense, but then I tripped and fell into a puddle of lysergic acid diethylamide.

I cannot describe the cosmic horror that I witnessed or the gods that spoke madness into my brain. Only the words "Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" remain clear in my memory.

I can, however, point you in the right direction to learn the truth.

Please join your local Esoteric Order of Dagon. They will enlighten you, mysterically, and esoterically (and if you're really lucky, physically).

I only want to know if I can be among the first to be devoured.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

You don't. You become a mystic yourself and meet God yourself and then decide about God for yourself. Rather than sitting there deferring to scientific or religious authorities like a bunch of brain-dead soulless cowards. Why? Because science can't do it for you, lazy asses. Neither can organized religion.

But hey, lets just make it all about pride and pissing contests.

Why is someone that has made such progress in his spiritual quest so vitriolic and caustic with those who are lost and blinded by their arrogance? It's demeaning to your spiritual progress. I would hope spiritual enlightenment would aid me in not being so annoyed by my detractors that I would resort to such a mordant tone.

I actually have gained great insight through the use of hallucinogenics.

It was on psilocybin that I first had freed my mind enough from the shackles of the taboo I was indoctrinated within to admit to myself that it was indeed quite possible that all of my religion was man made and it was possibly all a product of my culture rather than some unbroken chain of knowledge handed down by a deity.

This was a profound moment for me, directly faccilitated by the liberating qualities made capable through the psychedelic experience. Being able to lose the ego is a valuable and tangible benefit to psychedelics. This is the kind of truth Sagan was advocating, not secret hidden mystic realms.

I later learned through hours of philosophical obsessing while on LSD that everything I found important and meaningful was a product of my own observation, and that importance and meaning was not an intrinsic quality of the universe.

This was another profound epiphany which again was directly made possible by the psychedelic experience.

These experiences are invaluable to a critical mind who is not seeking to obfuscate reality with systems of esoteric truths. These substances offer as a tangible benefit the chance to examine one's own desires and discard that which keeps us from looking in places we are otherwise fearful or unwilling to.

I actually have gained great insight through the use of hallucinogenics.

It was on psilocybin that I first had freed my mind enough from the shackles of the taboo I was indoctrinated within to admit to myself that it was indeed quite possible that all of my religion was man made and it was possibly all a product of my culture rather than some unbroken chain of knowledge handed down by a deity.

This was a profound moment for me, directly faccilitated by the liberating qualities made capable through the psychedelic experience. Being able to lose the ego is a valuable and tangible benefit to psychedelics. This is the kind of truth Sagan was advocating, not secret hidden mystic realms.

I later learned through hours of philosophical obsessing while on LSD that everything I found important and meaningful was a product of my own observation, and that importance and meaning was not an intrinsic quality of the universe.

This was another profound epiphany which again was directly made possible by the psychedelic experience.

These experiences are invaluable to a critical mind who is not seeking to obfuscate reality with systems of esoteric truths. These substances offer as a tangible benefit the chance to examine one's own desires and discard that which keeps us from looking in places we are otherwise fearful or unwilling to.

Could you allow the possibility you may have had these insights eventually regardless?

Could you allow the possibility you may have had these insights eventually regardless?

I certainly had a similar thought process, and the only drug I took at the time was caffeen (didn't smoke, drink, or even take asprin during those years). So even if he can't the idea that drugs are necessary for such a thought process isn't necessarily true (and please understand, I'm not saying he can't or that his testimony would be irrelevant--I'm merely offering my experiences as an example of a person in a normal mental state coming to the same conclusion he did via a similar thought process).

__________________GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Could you allow the possibility you may have had these insights eventually regardless?

Oh yes, absolutely. However, I'm not saying these substances created these thoughts in my head. They do not reveal truths intrinsic to the substance. I want to make that distinction abundantly clear here. I am not claiming revelation is given by these substances.

What they do however is create a state of mind which is conducive to insight. These are not simple poisons short circuiting the brain with random stimuli and delirium, they target and stimulate very specific areas of perception directly connected with introspection, empathy, ego, metaphor, symbolism, insight and connection.

It was not confirmation bias. At the time I was expecting to see magic and have a religious validation, a search for the divine. What I received was the opposite. I was bombarded with cold hard reality and an honest frame of reference I could not hide with self delusion. It would have taken years of further introspection to have come anywhere near these observations.

I see a lot of irrationality among folks on either side of the drug issue.

On one hand, you have the burnouts who believe drugs actually take them to a higher plane of existence or whatever, that all drugs are safe, that cannabis cures every disease known to man, etc. They often have no clue when to stop, and alienate sane moderates much like the Animal RightsWrongs movement alienates sane conservationists.

On the other hand, you have straight-edge "only losers use drugs" "poisoning your mind" types who are often profoundly ignorant of the various effects and differences between psychoactive drugs. Not much different than "toxin" woo, and they seem to harbor the irrational belief that the human brain is perfect/pure and any tampering is detrimental. Many of these are probably just reacting to experiences with the burnouts mentioned above, and don't seem to consider the possibility of responsible use.

Are hallucinogens going to give you any profound scientific insights? Not likely. Artistic insights, on the other hand...

I have to announce my conversion, here on JREF forums. I pondered Limbo's meaning and especially his espousing of the "esoteric." At first I dismissed it as frivolous nonsense, but then I tripped and fell into a puddle of lysergic acid diethylamide.

I cannot describe the cosmic horror that I witnessed or the gods that spoke madness into my brain. Only the words "Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" remain clear in my memory.

I can, however, point you in the right direction to learn the truth.

Please join your local Esoteric Order of Dagon. They will enlighten you, mysterically, and esoterically (and if you're really lucky, physically).

I can see you're confused. I think it boils down to the fact that you have yet to actually study esoterica and mysticism, and so you don't have a handle on what an esoteric God is all about. People grow up thinking of God in exoteric terms and it's unreasonable to expect a skeptic or a believer to suddenly switch to esoteric terms without even having the background knowledge. It actually takes time and effort to understand esoterica and mysticism (aside from childish pop-culture understandings, which must be unlearned), and I have yet to talk to a skeptic willing to put any time and effort into it. They seem to expect a few posts from me to substitute for independent effort and independent learning, and then they blame me for their confusion when they should blame themselves for insisting on a quick and easy understanding of a very complex thing.

So that's your justification for refusing to explain anything? Nice. Good luck bringing people to an understanding of your viewpoint with that attitude.

__________________Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

The smart-kid clique is predictably offended at the prospect that there is something they can't instantly understand about religion, having conceived of religion as the domain of simpletons for so very, very long.

So teach us, Oh Enlightened One.

__________________Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

You don't. You become a mystic yourself and meet God yourself and then decide about God for yourself. Rather than sitting there deferring to scientific or religious authorities like a bunch of brain-dead soulless cowards. Why? Because science can't do it for you, lazy asses. Neither can organized religion.

But hey, lets just make it all about pride and pissing contests.

The problem with this approach is that it is indistinguishable from mere confabulation, and so, not very useful in practical terms. How do I know that what a mystic describes is actually real, or if they're making it up? How do I know that they weren't simply suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy? I'm not going to subject myself to potentially dangerous hallucinogens just on the offchance that one particular mystic (who almost never describes exactly the same experience as another mystic) happens to have had a genuine experience. Even if I do, how do I know my experience is "genuine" and not just a hallucination brought about by experimentation with potentially dangerous drugs?

Mysticism isn't reliable. Different mystics claim different insights. There's no way to verify their claims, and no way to verify any experience I might have.

As has been pointed out to you already, you were challenged on the question of empirical claims. This road you're going down seems to be a distraction from that point.

So, to further the conversation on the question I actually asked you, I will reiterate the question posed to you in post #12 by SonOfLaertes:

Quote:

Limbo, please give an example of a quote from the Bible which makes an empirical claim about God, and explain to us why it cannot be scientifically tested. Please choose a good example of this phenomenon so we can cut right to the chase and begin debating your assertion.

*crickets chirp*

__________________Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

I actually have gained great insight through the use of hallucinogenics.

It was on psilocybin that I first had freed my mind enough from the shackles of the taboo I was indoctrinated within to admit to myself that it was indeed quite possible that all of my religion was man made and it was possibly all a product of my culture rather than some unbroken chain of knowledge handed down by a deity.

This was a profound moment for me, directly faccilitated by the liberating qualities made capable through the psychedelic experience. Being able to lose the ego is a valuable and tangible benefit to psychedelics. This is the kind of truth Sagan was advocating, not secret hidden mystic realms.

Exactly. Just look at the insights that LSD can bring about especially regarding dealing with drug addiction (the studies done in the 50's and 60's I believe).

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

I see a lot of irrationality among folks on either side of the drug issue.

On one hand, you have the burnouts who believe drugs actually take them to a higher plane of existence or whatever, that all drugs are safe, that cannabis cures every disease known to man, etc. ~snip

On the other hand, you have straight-edge "only losers use drugs" "poisoning your mind" types who are often profoundly ignorant of the various effects and differences between psychoactive drugs.~snip~

Then you have people like me, who say "Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, but harm my family and I'll sue you for anything that'll stick".

Just to be clear, that's more or less my standard view of anything.

What drugs DO NOT do, and CANNOT do, is teach you about reality. They can help you gain insights, they can shuffle your thoughts into random patterns, they can shut you down and restart you, but they can't teach you about reality (with the obvious exception of the question "What happens when I lick this toad?" or the like). In other words, drugs can provide data but they cannot provide interpretation. Once you come down you've got to sort through the effects to see what's worth keeping, same as any other means of knowing anything. Most of science is sorting through the garbage to find the valuable bits.

__________________GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Then you have people like me, who say "Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, but harm my family and I'll sue you for anything that'll stick".

Just to be clear, that's more or less my standard view of anything.

What drugs DO NOT do, and CANNOT do, is teach you about reality. They can help you gain insights, they can shuffle your thoughts into random patterns, they can shut you down and restart you, but they can't teach you about reality (with the obvious exception of the question "What happens when I lick this toad?" or the like). In other words, drugs can provide data but they cannot provide interpretation. Once you come down you've got to sort through the effects to see what's worth keeping, same as any other means of knowing anything. Most of science is sorting through the garbage to find the valuable bits.

I'm not so sure about that. I think hallucinogens can often break down some of the subjective "reality-creation" that the mind is doing all the time and reveal the process to you. However using that insight later can be difficult. Personally my experiences with hallucingens only served to convince me further that gods and religions are nonsense whilst also reminding me that the possibility of being utterly and totally wrong about something one is 100% convinced of is very much a possibility.

I'm not so sure about that. I think hallucinogens can often break down some of the subjective "reality-creation" that the mind is doing all the time and reveal the process to you.

Fair enough. What I should have said was that they can't teach you about external reality (other than, obviously, "What does this drug do?"). They certainly can teach you about your internal reality--ie, how your mind works. Though as you said, it can be difficult to utilize that data (or even interpret it, as your mechanism for interpreting data is what's being stressed).

__________________GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

I'm not so sure about that. I think hallucinogens can often break down some of the subjective "reality-creation" that the mind is doing all the time and reveal the process to you. However using that insight later can be difficult. Personally my experiences with hallucingens only served to convince me further that gods and religions are nonsense whilst also reminding me that the possibility of being utterly and totally wrong about something one is 100% convinced of is very much a possibility.

Hallucinations do not reveal to the hallucinator any information that is reliable, and therefore, any insights, conclusions, or interpretations are not sound.

Limbo's failure is that he does not have a way to differentiate a mystical experience from a hallucination, and so we can reasonably conclude that a mystical experience provides no reliable information.

Dawkin's dilemma is that If god is a real entity, then the scientific method provides no reliable information, as it will only reach the conclusions that god allows it to reach.
(If you want to investigate an object rumored to not emit or reflect light, then a magnifying glass doesn't do much good. You need an alternate tool or an alternate way to use the tool.)

Dawkin's dilemma is that If god is a real entity, then the scientific method provides no reliable information, as it will only reach the conclusions that god allows it to reach.

While I agree with the rest of your statement, I will nitpick here and say that "it depends on what definition of 'god' you are using."

It seems you are making the assumption that the god in question is YAHWEH, but it's only an assumption, thus essentially -- potentially -- nullifying your statement. In other words, you're assuming that this god has the ability to control the conclusions one would or could reach by utilizing the scientific method in studying that particular god.

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

While I agree with the rest of your statement, I will nitpick here and say that "it depends on what definition of 'god' you are using."

It seems you are making the assumption that the god in question is YAHWEH, but it's only an assumption, thus essentially -- potentially -- nullifying your statement. In other words, you're assuming that this god has the ability to control the conclusions one would or could reach by utilizing the scientific method in studying that particular god.

I'll also do a little nit-picking, go to the opening post, and assume that the god in question can be described as follows:
"The god widely believed in has created the universe, interfered multiple times in history, radically affected historical events, performs miracles".

Maybe instead of nit-picking definitions we can just be reasonable, read a reasonable post, and respond with a reasonable comment,

I'll also do a little nit-picking, go to the opening post, and assume that the god in question can be described as follows:
"The god widely believed in has created the universe, interfered multiple times in history, radically affected historical events, performs miracles".

Maybe instead of nit-picking definitions we can just be reasonable, read a reasonable post, and respond with a reasonable comment,

Are you stating that mine wasn't a reasonable response?

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

While I agree with the rest of your statement, I will nitpick here and say that "it depends on what definition of 'god' you are using."

It seems you are making the assumption that the god in question is YAHWEH, but it's only an assumption, thus essentially -- potentially -- nullifying your statement. In other words, you're assuming that this god has the ability to control the conclusions one would or could reach by utilizing the scientific method in studying that particular god.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Are you stating that mine wasn't a reasonable response?

Of course I am, it wasn't even close to reasonable.
You claimed I made an unwarranted assumption, when in fact all that I was assuming was that the OP would like comments based on the OP, which I will claim is 100% warranted.

Of course I am, it wasn't even close to reasonable.
You claimed I made an unwarranted assumption, when in fact all that I was assuming was that the OP would like comments based on the OP, which I will claim is 100% warranted.

Really? Where did I say anything about your assumption as being unwarranted? I was pointing out that it is nothing but an assumption; your discussion and meaning of 'god' is different than others which necessarily modifies your statement.

Besides, you said "Dawkin's dilemma is that If god is a real entity, then the scientific method provides no reliable information, as it will only reach the conclusions that god allows it to reach" which again assumes that according to the OP's quote ("The god widely believed in has created the universe, interfered multiple times in history, radically affected historical events, performs miracles") this god that was very poorly defined not only desires to alter conclusions reached through the scientific method but that it's believers know enough about this god to make that factual statement. The latter assumptions you are making I would consider unwarranted, but not the former.

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

Dawkins' major argument in The God Delusion is that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and should be treated as such. Here are some quotes to illustrate the point:

This position is controversial to say the least, and many would disagree.

To me, Dawkins' position is sound. One could argue that a god who is outside the universe and never interferes in it is outside the reach of science and I agree (though it would be an utterly meaningless idea). But this is not the god that people believe in. The god widely believed in has created the universe, interfered multiple times in history, radically affected historical events, performs miracles, and is deeply concerned about humanity, handing out rewards and punishments depending on behavior. Surely the effects of his activities should be discovoerable by scientific means. Certain claims we can directly test, such as if prayer works (it doesn't) or if Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt (he didn't, because the story is fictious).

We can test and reject the hypothesis that thunder is caused by Thor fighting giants. There is no evidence for the Thor hypothesis, and we have other hypotheses that fit the facts better. The god that is widely believed in today isn't really that different. If you wonder what concerned scientists think, you might be interested in reading why almost all cosmologists are atheists.

Those of you who disagree and don't think the God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis, how do you view the question of the existence of God?

It is not possible to get past the 50/50 position on the existence or not of God* with rational thought or scientific study.

I doubt Dawkins would disagree with me given what could be agreed on as scientific definitions of God. As science is a study of objects, rather than subjects.

I agree that God can be scientifically investigated in principle, but we would never know if we had answered the question or not.

* the God of the bible or other mythology being subjective is beyond the remit of science, which can only test for a material God.

__________________Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

A notion is an idea about a thing or group of things. For example is there the appearance of a man in the moon, or is it the human mind seeing the appearance of a face, where there is no distinct pattern resembling a face.

Or look at my avatar, is there the resemblance of a face, or just a twig and a bit of moss?